XKCD Succumbs To Climate Change Denial

It’s a strange irony of the “climate change” campaign that its advocates are the ones who deny the existence of climate change—or at least, they deny the existence of climate change in the past. They stubbornly deny that global temperatures have changed in any really significant way since end of the last ice age, insisting that climate stasis is the natural norm and that it is only in the past few decades that global temperatures have begun to vary in any significant way.

I am sad to say that this kind of dogmatic climate change denial has now made its way to XKCD, a web-based comic strip created by Randall Munroe that is a favorite of science geek types and the “I Freaking Love Science” set. It is often a bit precious and smug but occasionally quite funny, and its biggest claim to fame is probably the classic one-frame gag, “Someone is wrong on the Internet.”

Recently, though, Munroe succumbed to climate change denial with a cartoon purporting to show a history of global temperature.

It shows a dotted line indicating the long steady upward climb in temperatures from the last ice age, from 20,000 years ago to about 11,000 years ago, when it notes that “temperatures reach modern levels.” Then the temperatures stay there, varying by less than a degree with hardly any year-to-year variation at all, up to about 1880, when the dotted line become solid—indicating (though this is not explicitly noted) that we have switched to modern thermometer measurements—at which point they begin to tick jerkily upward.

Then somewhere in the 1980s (the resolution of the graph is not very fine), everything goes haywire and the temperature graph veers sharply up toward warmer temperatures. Still, I should note, the line doesn’t actually go out of the historical range of the last 9,000 years. After that, we switch back to dotted lines that show three future “scenarios” warning of continuing rapid increases in temperature.

The idea, spelled out rather obviously to us, is that this cartoon is the ultimate rejoinder to those who say “the climate has changed before.” A cartoon, mind you. Because nothing says “I Freaking Love Science” like getting your scientific data from the funny pages. And boy did the smartest thinkers fall for it. But I digress.

The first thing a sharp-eyed observer might find odd about this cartoon is that the long dotted line of historical temperatures is smooth. Really, really smooth. Suspiciously smooth. It shows only very long, gradual changes and no year-to-year or decade-to-decade bumps and wiggles, not even on the scale of tenths of a degree. That’s weird, right? I mean, that doesn’t seem to conform to the real world or actual climate. The contrast is all the more marked when we switch to the solid line of systematic global thermometer measurements, and for the first time we start to see a little bit of that wiggly data (still smoothed out considerably by the artist, I should add).

There’s a reason for that contrast. Off in the margin of the cartoon, in tiny letters, are listed the sources for the cartoon’s data. One of them is “Marcott, et al. (2013).” Well, that rings a bell. The Marcott study is one that raised a stink because it was an attempt to create yet another “hockey stick” graph in which all of human history—this time, going back 11,000 years—shows a flat line of global temperatures, with only recent decades showing an alarming upward trend like the blade of a hockey stick. It’s a classic expression of climate change denial.

But the controversy at the time revealed a basic problem with this presentation of the data, and it has everything to do with that switch from the dotted line to the solid line. If the solid line represents thermometer measurements, what does the earlier dotted line represent? It represents estimates of global temperature based on “proxy” measurements. Because we didn’t have a systematic global set of thermometer measurements before the 1880s, scientists look at other things they can measure—sediment deposits, or tree ring growth in certain ancient, slow-growing trees—which tend to vary along with temperature. While these things don’t directly measure temperature, we can use them as “proxies” to get very rough estimates.

The problem is that these proxies tend to also vary with factors other than temperature and can be affected by things like rainfall or sheep grazing. So the temperature estimates they give us are very rough. Scientists compensate for this, in part, by “smoothing” the data. Since year-to-year spikes in the proxy data may just be noise that brings in other confounding factors, scientists average them out to get a nice smooth graph that is meaningful, not on a year-to-year or decade-to-decade level, but on a scale of centuries.

I mean that literally. When pressed on their findings, the authors of the Marcott study admitted that “the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of about 120 years on average.” What that means is that “no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1,000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2,000-year periods and longer.” Get that? Any change in temperature that lasts less then 2,000 years might not be reliable.

Now we understand the strange, flat, featureless character of that dotted line. It’s not a reflection of the actual lack of variation in real temperatures. It’s a line that has been deliberately smoothed out to make up for the imperfections in the data.

I think you can also see the fundamental problem with taking that smoothed data set and just throwing it in with actual temperature measurements with all of their year-to-year and decade-to-decade variations. It makes those recent variations seem weird, dramatic, and unprecedented. But we have every reason to believe that real temperatures were varying exactly as much throughout all of the past 11,000 years. It’s just that we aren’t able to capture those variations in our measurements.

Get a daily digest of the day’s headlines

Recent Comments

Amber

If left wing pinko Saunders doesn’t like him he sounds like he has potential .
He looks like a guy with a bit of backbone and won’t be bullied by the Demo rat
whiners who have infiltrated the EPA .
Good luck Mr. Pruitt . …. hire security . When the looney tunes get desperate( and they are ) they go into ugly mode . Taking apart their $Trillion dollar con game is going to get them down right belligerent but who cares ? They did get about 1 % of the vote
after all . In other words the science fiction is settled in the minds of voters by about
99 % . The debate is over in their hot air world .
Drain away Mr. Pruitt the public backs you despite the shrill sound of whiners who just had their piggy bank broken .

Amber

The NASA data manipulators collectively don’t have an IQ over 38 . Bullshit merchants about to be out on their ass . Maybe Britain would like to hire NASA rejects .
Where oh where are Dicaprio and Gore going to get their alarmist propaganda ?
When is the much vaunted IPCC report coming out ? That’s right NEVER .
The jig is up they were played as useful idiots and are no longer required .
Did the IPCC hot pants smut writer ever beat those sexual harassment allegations ? Quality right through the organization .

Amber

Why would virtually no change to Antarctic ice in over 100 years be a surprise at all .
Whether it’s minus – 60 or minus – 58 certainly we know it is fricking cold and it is not about to thaw . Throw a few volcanos open below the surface and a part of it might
but if that is considered caused by climate change the science fiction is bigger than
we know .
The question is how much will the Antarctic grow by over the next 1000 years ?

Amirlach

JayPee

I’m willing to consider your argument, but I’m disturbed of your willing to give credence to the unproven and unfoundedly assumed presumption that CO2, CH4, and any other gasses that the extremist left hates are upon their dictum alone the mythical GREENHOUSE GASSES as they define them to be.

I ask you not to buy into their argument without the proof that they have never had.
They have always had conjecture, lies and hysteria and even a low percentage of consensus ( as if that means anything ).
But they have NEVER had proof of their mythical GREENHOUSE EFFECT ( as defined by the extremist left ).